Analog Hole Legislation - MPEG to be illegal?

[ROF]

It's currently illegal to backup media.

Well then, they better start selling indestructable disks then. It's my understanding that if you buy a movie, you buy the right to view it forever. If the disk itself is damaged and you wish to replace it by making a copy, why is it illegal? They've gone to great pains to convince everyone that it's not the disk itself that you're buying, it's the license to view it so how can intellectual property be damaged or expire? It's not like you're buying a toaster and when it breaks you're out of luck, it's intellectual property.

Actually, if they want to stick to the "no replication of the product in any way" rule, then they would be in breach of the license agreement the consumer buys once that disk becomes no longer playable, since they have been paid for something that is no longer being delivered. And since they are in breach, they should be liable to replace the product.

Now imagine how much money people could cost these companies if they purchased disks just to damage them and send them back over and over.

What you say makes no sense at all? Have you ever bought a car? Did a salesman ever tell you "this baby will last forever"? Did you believe them? Nothing last forever and there is nothing in your purchase agreement or any license that says you are entitled to the intellectual property contained on the disc forever. You are licensed to view/listen the Intellectual property for the life of the disc. Sometimes that life is 20 years other times it's 5 minutes. Take care of your property and it will hopefully serve you well for many years to come. Get into an accident, fail to prevent kids from dumping sugar in your gas tank and well . . . . .

It's also illegal to archive television.

Have you not heard of a thing called a VCR?

What's a VCR? OH! You mean those old devices that allowed you to timeshift television or watch purchased IP upon. I've heard of them. Have not owned one in years but I do repair them for others. You do realize that by archiving television using a VCR you have depending on your location violated the law. There's a big difference between recording for timeshifting purposes and recording every episode of a television series on tape for continuous viewing.

[lordsmurf]

Where are you getting this from? Neither this law nor the broadcast flag have this effect at all.

You don't think "big picture" enough. Have to quit analyzing the fine print with a legalese mindset. And look beyond next month.

Our tech is going to change in the near future. Current in-my-house devices will only record current on-my-tv signals. If a law like this prevents future digital recordings, and is used on the next generation tech, then there is no way to record tv in 10 years. Analog will likely be completely obsolete at that point, and this would effectively shut out an analog hole, override fair use doctrine, and hide behind DMCA.

The only reason this sort of stuff happens is because small groups lobby governments to pass laws, as well as find loopholes in existing laws. Or in the case of the DMCA, distort it beyond the intentions of the framers of that law, and then find a judge dumb enough to go along with it.

This has everything to do with the future, in a decade from now, and nothing to do with us in the present.

[GullyFoyle]

A always find it amazing that some here defend the status quo against common sense. That they maintain the soulless corporation has more entitlement than the public. The public whose airwaves they are to begin with. The public whose government it is.
Of course you will always find that in classist societies. I got mine you don't need yours types.
What is interesting is nearly every scifi writer has warned against the evils of corporations. I think Heinlien even had them charging for air on the Moon. The visionaries seem more aware of what potential evil could be done against the common man in the name of profit.
Then again they did deal with the publication system and structure.

[lordsmurf]

I always find it amazing that some here defend the status quo against common sense. .

I just thought that was worth repeating. 8)

[ROF]

I always find it amazing that some here defend the status quo against common sense. .

I just thought that was worth repeating. 8)

I think it deserves a double repeat myself. People here and elsewhere keep defending their rights to violate the law since they are provided with equipment and software that helps them to do so. The hardware and software has other purposes of which broadcast flags will not prevent their usage. This bit of proposed legislation is a little too much in my opinion though. if I read it right it makes ownership of devices that have considerable non-infringing uses illegal to possess because of their potential to infringe, which in my opinion is not right or just.

[canadateck]

lordsmurf Banned?

Joking right?

[ROF]

I bet he banned himself for reasons only his smurfdom would know about. or maybe that's a moderators away message.

[canadateck]

No I think Maybe some1 is playing with him.

[GullyFoyle]

I always find it amazing that some here defend the status quo against common sense. .

I just thought that was worth repeating. 8)

I think it deserves a double repeat myself. People here and elsewhere keep defending their rights to violate the law since they are provided with equipment and software that helps them to do so. The hardware and software has other purposes of which broadcast flags will not prevent their usage. This bit of proposed legislation is a little too much in my opinion though. if I read it right it makes ownership of devices that have considerable non-infringing uses illegal to possess because of their potential to infringe, which in my opinion is not right or just.

Just like when PRIVATE corporations buy up water rights or PUBLIC utilities from the state. The PEOPLE gain nothing. The CORPORATION gains everything.
The airwaves belong to the people. The government belongs to the people. The government gave a sweetheart deal to the corporations for the airwaves at the expense of the taxpayer. The government worked against the INTEREST of it's own citizens.
I admit that argument is only relevant against television. But I pay for television. Commercials pay for television. That is twice some corporation makes a profit. The state taxes it. So the state profits as well.
If it is paid for twice why should anyone pay for it again?
When I support legislation like this I go against my own inetrest. Who is stupid enough to willingly act against their own best interest and common sense?
Just because there is a law does not make it a fair and just law. Civil rights movement anyone? Laws are overturned everyday because they are unfair and unconstitutional. It takes the actions of the regular man to change these laws. The regular man acting in his own best interest.
Always remember this
‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’

[CaptainVideo]

While I am not a fan of DRM or any kind of draconian lockdown on media, the reality is the market will take care of it. If it's too draconian people will not purchase any of it.

Also, if it goes through how does it harm you? Do these copy protection methods threaten your life? Would they keep you out of work? Would they keep you from entertaining yourself?

Books cannot be backed up. I mean I guess you could theoretically scan each page of a 200 page book but I highly doubt many people (if any) do it. Yet there are no cries for an easier way to back up a book. Some books cost more than audio CD's and DVD's and are more easily prone to damage.

adam,

While technically correct about creative authors owning the copyrights to their work, they don't own the copyrights to the actual product. For example, while a musician who records an album for label A owns the creative work, they do not own the recording of the creative work. They signed away that right usually in the contract they agreed to with label A. Those contracts also usually include a non-compete agreement, meaning they cannot re-record the work on their own and sell it in the marketplace. These non-compete agreements are usually very long in the 20 year range.

I hold no sympathy for them signing away these rights, but I'm just pointing out that it's not as simple as you say that they can just give up their copyrights and all these wonderful creations become public domain. They cannot give up their rights due to non-compete agreements and exclusives that label A has to the created work.

[adam]

While technically correct about creative authors owning the copyrights to their work, they don't own the copyrights to the actual product.

Yes they do!!! I thought I just explained this. The copyright is the song. Any recording of it whatsoever is protected by this copyright and it is owned by the creator. That artist can, if they so choose, contract to SELL the distribution rights to a studio or to anyone else they want. This is not a sale of the copyright this just grants the studio the right to distribute it. The artist still owns the music. Its no different than selling a CD to a customer. You grant them a license to listen to it, but you haven't sold them the copyright. Yes artists typically contractually limit what they can do with their own music as a condition of this license...if they didn't the license wouldn't be worth that much. How is this different from entering into any contract? Just because you contracted away certain rights doesn't mean you never had them in the first place.

So once again, unless its a work for hire the copyright is held by the creator...period. If they want to make a public dedication they can do so anytime up until the point where they contract away that right. Yes it is that simple.

You don't sell your copyright!!! You retain the copyright and license out the individual rights granted by it. And whether you do this at all, and on what terms, is entirely up to you.

[Shadowmistress]

Do you mean to tell me that if I were a music artist who sold the distribution rights to my song to company A, that I could get away with then turning around and declaring it "public domain" and let just anyone re-record the song and distribute albums under company B (since it's another vocal artist or "mix" of the song)?

Somehow I think company A would have a shit fit at their lost profits.
This is what we mean by the artist being restricted from expressing the art. In this case, freedom to see what other artists would do with your song.


P.S. Adam, sometimes it takes some of us a minute to absorb all the legal information. We're not lawyers and we don't know these things.

[adam]

Do you mean to tell me that if I were a music artist who sold the distribution rights to my song to company A, that I could get away with then turning around and declaring it "public domain" and let just anyone re-record the song and distribute albums under company B (since it's another vocal artist or "mix" of the song)?

No not at all. Like I keep saying, you can give your work away, if you want, anytime up until you license its use to someone else. My point is that you create it, you get the copyright. Which of the many "bundle of rights" that you keep, exploit, give away, or sell away is entirely up to you. But even when you do sell certain rights, you still retain the copyright contrary to what Lordsmurf and CaptainVideo said. You really never sell your copyright, there's no point.

You actually can make a public dedication of your copyright at any time but it will be subject to any licenses you have granted. So if I license distribution of my album to Sony Records for 10 years, then make a public dedication, I cannot enforce any of the other rights under the copyright and in 10 years it is entirely in the public domain.

I don't understand why people think this is so sinister. I mean if I sell my car to one person I can't then go and give it away to charity. But as the original owner I COULD have done anything I wanted with it. If I don't want someone to lock it away in their garage for 50 years than I just won't sell it to them.

We're not lawyers and we don't know these things.

There's nothing wrong with not knowing these things. The problem is that despite this, certain other people make patently false legal statements and then argue for pages and pages when corrected.

[Shadowmistress]

I see what you're saying about copywright/ public domain and I know that it's true, but I think that it's also sad as well that things have to be this way.

For instance, if I wrote a movie of my life and sold it to a movie studio, I can't then turn around and write a book about it because it would infringe on the screenplay - even if what's in the book is only one chapter of the movie. That just sucks in principle that today's laws have allowed such a thing to be. I know that people can make choices as to what rights they sell or sign away, but today's reality is that greedy money makers won't agree to accomplish the task properly unless they get everything including the kitchen sink in contract.

So in effect, my life is not my life and I can't be free to talk about it until the movie studio's licenses expire. It just wasn't like that in the old days.

[nwo]

Shadowmistress you are actually incorrect on both accounts. In the United States and in most countries in the world you have no right to backup audio/visual works.

Under current UK legislation, people are exempt from the rules protecting copyright if they video programme at home for their personal use.

[adam]

That's not how it works either Shadowmistress. You can't write a movie, you have to film it. Its your story, as soon as you do something with it the copyright is yours. This never changes.

You'd either write a book and then a screenplay (or hire someone else to do it) or you'd just write a screenplay to begin with. You'd sell the FILM rights (basically the right to make any audio/visual derivative work) to the studio who would make the film...eventually.

You still own the rights to the story and can do whatever you want with it except make another film...until the film rights revert back to you. How long this takes depends on how long you contracted for.

You sold the film rights, nothing else.

[adam]

nwo personal use and reverse engineering exemptions fall under Fair Use, in most countries and definitely in the UK. Fair Use does not permit full complete archival backups. That's really all besides the point anyway, we aren't talking about programming or research, we are talking about archiving.

[Shadowmistress]

Adam, in your reply post to me, I get where you're coming from. But do you at least get where I'm coming from? Just let me know if you see the point I'm trying to make (rather poorly I admit) and I'll drop the matter as I've suddenly lost interest in debating it further.

In your reply post to nwo, I didn't think we were talking about strictly archiving, as (bringing it back on topic now) devices used for a variety of purposes are being threatend, including timeshifting.

[CaptainVideo]

Yes they do!!! I thought I just explained this. The copyright is the song. Any recording of it whatsoever is protected by this copyright and it is owned by the creator. That artist can, if they so choose, contract to SELL the distribution rights to a studio or to anyone else they want. This is not a sale of the copyright this just grants the studio the right to distribute it. The artist still owns the music. Its no different than selling a CD to a customer. You grant them a license to listen to it, but you haven't sold them the copyright. Yes artists typically contractually limit what they can do with their own music as a condition of this license...if they didn't the license wouldn't be worth that much. How is this different from entering into any contract? Just because you contracted away certain rights doesn't mean you never had them in the first place.

So once again, unless its a work for hire the copyright is held by the creator...period. If they want to make a public dedication they can do so anytime up until the point where they contract away that right. Yes it is that simple.

You don't sell your copyright!!! You retain the copyright and license out the individual rights granted by it. And whether you do this at all, and on what terms, is entirely up to you.

Right I stand corrected and forgot, part of what the labels have been lobbying for was that these recordings were work for hire projects. Artists went nuts about this because it would mean the rights to the recordings would never revert back to the "copyright holder" being the author.

But I still stand by my comment that it isn't so simple as an artist deciding to release his/her works to the world. It is, if that artist did not enter into a contractual agreement with someone else but that is not the case with practically every recording. But I don't blame the labels for it, I blame the copyright author for agreeing to such a contract that no lawyer would ever advise a client to sign. I've seen these default contracts and people are so desperate for the fronted money and thinking that having a major label contract means success, they just sign the default contract.

I'm not trying to state facts here, I'm stating opinions based on my experience. I have no problem with being corrected. But anyone reading internet message boards should never take anything posted here as a final word on the subject but should go to more reputable sources. So I don't feel like anytime I make a post I have to be 100% factual correct or even 75% factually correct.

[thevoelk]

Here's an idea, instead of bickering here back and forth about legal fineprint, of which Adam is probably the resident authority and most likely 100% correct, why don't you take a minute and write/call your congressman? Use what was given to you a long time ago, the right to vote (USA at least). Arguing amongst yourselves will result in legislation like this being passed, since the people who are smart enough to understand the implications (us forum members) are too busy to realize this became law since it was slipped in through some appropriations bill. Like someone else mentioned in an earlier post regarding civil rights, it was the people's actions and reactions that led to the change in equality laws. If enough people know about this, it won't pass.

[adam]

Honestly no I don't see your point, at least not yet. You can contract for almost anything that you want to in the world. If you don't want to sell your work or put any limitations on yourself than you just don't. I'm sure lots of people enter into bad contracts. I just don't see how any of this is related to copyright law, like its some big bad thing that screws people right and left. Its the copyright that gives the artist their rights in the first place. How much they are willing to sell those rights for is up to them.

And no I don't see what nwo's point was either. His post was in reference to a quote regarding the fact that in most countries, time-shifting doesn't allow archiving, and that purchasing a DVD/VHS doesn't allow archiving. I don't see what the right to sample under Fair Use for scientific research has to do with either of these things.

[pdemondo]

if auto makers had control over their "intellectual proberty" like the
entertainment media:
1. wrenches would be illegal
2. haynes and chilton manuals would be illegal
3. You could ONLY buy parts from the dealer or face jail
4. each car would have a detection device to alert authorities when
you violated the car makers "work of art" with parts, repairs,
gas, oil, or other items that didn't bear the approval of the
car maker.

Automakers are in fact required to accomodate aftermarket parts and service by law.

[kirpen]

Adam what do you think about all the efforts to extend copywrite and patents? At some point dont you think enough is enough? This guy on tv pointed out how disney made its wealth off of others work but now are fighting to stop mickey etc from going public.

[adam]

kirpen, I'm not overly concerned about patent terms. In all these years the term has only increased from 14 years to 20, and even that is overstating things (terms were always counted from date of issuance, now they are counted from date of application...so real patent term is around 17-18 years.) For a number of years you could actually get a patent for 24 years (17 years + renew for 7 years) so going to a fixed term of 20 years was actually a decrease. I don't see patents getting extended anytime soon. If history is any indication we shouldn't see another extension for at least 100 years.

As for copyrights, I think the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act was a travesty (extended copyrights in US another 20 years to be on par with UK.) The Act was directly the result of Disney trying to keep Mickey from passing into the public domain. It is not a very popular law among lawyers in my opinion.

I'm not necessarily opposed to the former terms (life of author + 50 years) and apparantly neither is the rest of the world since that is almost universally the minimum term of protection and has been for many years. It was also the term agreed upon in massive international negotiations for both the Berne Convention and the TRIPS Treaty, and no the US did not participate at all in setting these terms.

[ROF]

Adam what do you think about all the efforts to extend copywrite and patents? At some point dont you think enough is enough? This guy on tv pointed out how disney made its wealth off of others work but now are fighting to stop mickey etc from going public.

Disney has been making money off others peoples works for years. That's the nature of a corporation. It hires out people to do it's work while it's president spreads ideas, it's boards enacts those ideas, and everyone from shareholders to the chairman benefits from all those in between who actually make the magic of Disney come alive. Copyrights should be indefinite, if that's what the author or owner of the work wants to safeguard their intellectual property.

Patents are something else entirely and should not ever be lumped in with copyrighted material topics. But since you asked, I think patent life should be based on the industry for which the patent is sought. There should be a cap on a patent life since the nature of the progression of ideas is through the use of the inventions of the past.

[lordsmurf]

while it's president spreads ideas, it's boards enacts those ideas, and everyone from shareholders to the chairman benefits from all those in between who actually make the magic of Disney come alive.

Oh my god, you have to be kidding me. That utopia only exists in a business text book for how things should work, but never do. That's the kind of MPAA crap they tried to show in theatres, telling everybody how downloading prevent them from paying their janitors and gaffers.

Except for "preferred" stockholders, or executives, or "muvee stars", nobody benefits off this stuff, aside from a few pennies on the dollar tossed their way.

The "suits" of the organization usually don't know anything (or minimally know something) about what goes on in the creative departments. They spend their day trying to make money, employees and content be damned. Reality tv should be adequate evidence for that, as thousands of actors/actresses are now starving ("common" actors too, ones that only pull in small salaries like you and me, not "stars"), and the quality of the content is totally lacking. But it makes money!

Copyrights should be indefinite, if that's what the author or owner of the work wants to safeguard their intellectual property.

Copyrights should only exist for a time that allows for a reasonable income based off the work. That was the entire goal of copyright law to begin with. It was here to protect an author from losing value on his new creations, not to legally insure greed for a century. Something like 20-25 years is more than reasonable. I don't have a problem with trademarks being indefinite. In common terms, this would mean anybody can use a mid 20th century Mickey Mouse cartoon as they see fit (sell, copies of it, give it out for free, whatever). But Mickey Mouse "new works" would still be prevented, because Disney owns the mouse forever. I have no problem with them being the sole owner of the mouse.

Right now rights extend so far back that many times the owners (even the elderly ones) were either not even conceived yet or still pissing their diapers. That's ridiculous. Most of the people that could have enjoyed the cultural material are long dead. They should be thankful anybody even remembers their stuff, not to mention appreciates it so much as to want a personal copy to enjoy.

Patents really should not extend past 10 years. Either use the new idea, or let somebody else do it. Lead, follow, or get the hell out of way.

.
.
.

To get this thread back on topic, people have fought hard for what few piddly rights they have. Timeshifting, fair use, etc. If people don't pay attention to laws being requested today, they may not any rights whatsoever tomorrow. Something like this proposed law is not only wrong, but it's vulgar and insulting to society.

[rkr1958]

To get this thread back on topic, people have fought hard for what few piddly rights they have. Timeshifting, fair use, etc.

You're kidding right? "piddly rights they have ..." ? I don't consider freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equality, etc. "piddly rights". "Timeshifting, fair use, ect." while important are not nearly on par with these basic rights.

[lordsmurf]

To get this thread back on topic, people have fought hard for what few piddly rights they have. Timeshifting, fair use, etc.

You're kidding right? "piddly rights they have ..." ? I don't consider freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equality, etc. "piddly rights". "Timeshifting, fair use, ect." while important are not nearly on par with these basic rights.

Talking about rights as it relates to this conversation. This isn't about speech or religion or whatever else you're trying to interject with. That's not the topic.

[GullyFoyle]

For the pro-corporate crowd who argue against their own best interest this is where it leads;
http://www.wired.com/news/rants/0,2350,69467,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2

The Cover-Up Is the Crime
Sony BMG is facing a cacophony of criticism this week following the revelation that some of its CDs are packed with special copy-protection software that conceals itself with an advanced hacker cloaking technique. We think the company is getting off easy.

The firestorm began when Mark Russinovich, a computer security expert with Sysinternals, discovered evidence of a "rootkit" on his Windows PC. Through heroic forensic work, he traced the code to First 4 Internet, a British provider of copy-restriction technology that has a deal with Sony to put digital rights management on its CDs. It turns out Russinovich was infected with the software when he played the Sony BMG CD Get Right With the Man by the Van Zant brothers.

A rootkit is a particularly insidious type of Trojan horse that hides its existence from users and programs by tampering with the operating system on the most fundamental level. Where normal malicious code might be content to choose a deceptive file name, a rootkit "hooks" operating system calls that might reveal its presence, and essentially reprograms them to lie -- like bribing the coroner to conceal a murder.

And the lie the First 4 Internet code tells is a whopper. Under the program's influence, Windows will deny the existence of any file, directory, process or registry key whose name begins with "$sys$." Russinovich verified this by making a copy of Notepad named "$sys$notepad.exe," which promptly vanished from view.

That means that any hacker who can gain even rudimentary access to a Windows machine infected with the program now has the power to hide anything he wants under the "$sys$" cloak of invisibility. Criticism of Sony has largely focused on this theoretical possibility -- that black hats might piggyback on the First 4 Internet software for their own ends.

On Wednesday, Sony answered its critics by promising to issue a patch that allows antivirus software to pierce First 4 Internet's cloaking function. But in our view, the hacker and virus threat is something of a red herring. The harm of the Sony DRM scheme is not that it enables evildoers, but that Sony itself did evil.

We needn't go skulking through the computer underground to find malicious action here. By deliberately corrupting the most basic functionality of their customers' computers, Sony broke the rules of fair play and crossed a bright line separating legitimate software from computer trespass. Their actions may be civilly actionable.

Sony may even have committed a crime under the U.S. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which can carry fines and prison terms for anyone who "knowingly causes the transmission of a program ... and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage, without authorization, to a protected computer." Corrupting Windows so it misreports the contents of a hard drive sounds a lot like "damage," and the click-wrap license agreement on the Sony disk amounts to pretty thin "authorization" -- disclosing only that "this CD will automatically install a small proprietary software program ... intended to protect the audio files embodied on the CD."

Nor are we comforted by assurances from First 4 Internet's CEO Mathew Gilliat-Smith, who, in an interview with CNET's News.com, defended his software this way: "For the eight months that these CDs have been out, we haven't had any comments about malware (malicious software) at all." Rootkits, like other cover-ups, rarely generate complaints before they're discovered.

Sony should immediately disclose the full details of its deployment of the First 4 Internet software, and assure the public that it will not use similar tactics in the future. Honest programs have no need to conceal themselves or their actions from users. Honest companies, too.

Feel better now?
How can anyone be so shortsighted as NOT to think this will lead to much worse? That the benevolent corporation will WILLINGLY curtail their campaign of maximing profit at any cost?
For seemingly intelligent people you overlook the obvious. You choose the greedmongers over your own best interest.
Just because a corporation or government passes a law does NOT make it the "right" thing to do.

[GullyFoyle]

To get this thread back on topic, people have fought hard for what few piddly rights they have. Timeshifting, fair use, etc.

You're kidding right? "piddly rights they have ..." ? I don't consider freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equality, etc. "piddly rights". "Timeshifting, fair use, ect." while important are not nearly on par with these basic rights.

Talking about rights as it relates to this conversation. This isn't about speech or religion or whatever else you're trying to interject with. That's not the topic.

Actually it is. Curtailing any choice you have now is denying you a freedom. Once lost freedoms tend NEVER to be recovered.